FABTECH365,

The State of Welding Education During COVID-19

By Jennifer Dallos on on August 1, 2020

Reprinted with permission: The AWS Welding Journal By: W. Richard Polanin W. RICHARD POLANIN is president of WRP Associates, Germantown Hills, Ill.; coprincipal investigator for The National Center for Welding Education and Training (Weld-Ed); and vice president of the American Welding Society, Miami, Fla. The National Center for Welding Education and Training (Weld-Ed) is a national partnership between the welding and materials joining industry and the nation’s community and technical colleges and universities that is dedicated to expanding the role and pipeline of welding technicians in industry. Weld-Ed was funded in 2007 as an Advanced Technological Education National Center by the National Science Foundation. Weld-Ed’s website can be found at weld-ed.org. As the world continues to struggle with the COVID-19 pandemic, we, at the National Center for Welding Education and Training (Weld-Ed), are beginning to see some patterns in the delivery methods and limitations within welding education. These patterns can be seen in the analyzed data from a survey we conducted that was sent to welding instructors in April 2020.

The National Center for Welding Education and Training (Weld-Ed) compiled a survey to determine the effect of COVID-19 on welding education. The survey established welding instructors will need to develop new strategies for demonstrations.

The survey had a total number of 333 respondents, with 291 fully completed surveys from nearly every state within the United States. The information that follows is a summary of the key findings from the survey. Background Welding instructors want the best possible education and training for their students. With the severe restrictions imposed to mitigate COVID-19, welding instructors, as well as all career and technical education (CTE) instructors, are thrust into situations requiring innovation and adaptation. Since the start of the pandemic, online learning has become the standard for delivering welding education. For some courses, notably those without a laboratory practice component, the online format seems to be acceptable. However, as revealed by the survey data, an online format often poses serious restrictions to content delivery and student success. State departments of health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to shift and evolve guidance for returning to classrooms and laboratories. But to assure quality welding education and training, a return to classrooms and laboratories is necessary. In a letter to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Labor John Pallasch, President and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges Walter Bumphus states, “It became clear that while community colleges had the capacity to convert courses to online instruction, they also had reservations about doing so and about the negative impact it would have on training programs across multiple industry sectors. Online learning is appropriate for certain courses and it is an effective tool for learning. However, the universal application of it in CTE and RTI [related technical instruction] programs does not remove the need for face-to-face labs and experiences that must be conducted in person.” Certainly, the need for face-to-face instruction is obvious for many CTE courses, especially skill-building courses in welding. However, what is lost in the discussion about the need for practice to build requisite skills in many CTE courses is the lack of understanding about student learning preference and the need for socialization. Welding students are kinesthetic learners. Online learning tends to cater to the opposite student-learning preference of auditory and visual. In addition, many educators continue to hammer on the need for “soft skills” as their students enter the workforce. Online learning provides minimal opportunity to communicate orally, practice teamwork skills, develop social skills, or exercise appreciation for various viewpoints. Although video conferencing and well-designed chat sessions border on social interaction, the participants remain isolated with a limited ability to express personal beliefs. Many of the key findings from our survey indicate similar thinking by the welding education community. It is not enough to simply deliver welding and related theory; it is necessary to engage our students through thoughtful and meaningful interaction. Brad Polanin, superintendent of the Riverton Community Unit School District in Illinois, in a letter to his students, parents, and the community, wrote, “Schools throughout the nation often focus our energy, attention, and efforts on improving academic achievement and standardized-test scores. After all, we are schools and we are here for teaching and learning. However, what often gets overlooked and unnoticed are the life lessons taught by staff members and peers. As with all people in society, students and teachers all come from differing backgrounds and differing experiences, all contributing to the experience of individuals. Experiences within a school can be good or bad, but they all are responsible for forming young lives that will sustain our future.” During this time of turmoil, we must not lose sight of the diverse mission of welding, manufacturing, and career education in general. Assuredly, it is our responsibility to provide the best education and training to our students to prepare them for a successful career. But it is also our responsibility to provide our students with experiences that will prepare them for a successful life. The following key findings and comments from the respondents of the survey may provide some suggestions for organizing and developing courses for an uncertain future. We hope you all stay safe and that the data and commentary offers some useful information to prepare for the fall semester. Key Findings At the time the survey was conducted (April/May 2020), 308 schools (93.3%) were closed as a result of COVID-19. Instructors taught in a variety of school settings, including universities (1%), community colleges (21%), technical schools (22%), high schools (52%), and industry (1%). The survey also revealed 83.3% of the instructors were providing online instruction. However, only 66 respondents (21%) indicated that student participation in class was between 90% and 100%. Eighty-nine respondents (28.9%) indicated that less than 50% of their students were participating. The predominant video conferencing platform was Zoom with 42.5% respondents. However, Google platforms (Hangouts, Classroom, Meetings) were also commonly used. Many of the respondents confused learning management systems (LMS) with video conferencing platforms. Yet, 40% of respondents specified that a LMS was used for part of the instruction, with Canvas used by 23.5% and Blackboard by 11%. The limited use of an LMS is supported by understanding the development of the type of online content delivered. Fifty-six percent of respondents said the online welding content was instructor-developed content, or instructor-developed with the use of YouTube content. Only 26.6% of instructors used commercially-developed products. Only 5% of respondents indicated their students were prepared through online and in-class instruction to enter the workforce. About 79% of the respondents signified their students were only partially prepared or not prepared well (24%) to enter the workforce. The limited use of an LMS or video conferencing platform is directly related to the difficulties of online instruction for students. For example, 55.5% of the respondents said their students did not have access to Wi-Fi or the internet, and 18% specified their students did not have access to a computer. Although 93.3% of the respondents reported their school was closed, 20% specified they were continuing to teach modified laboratory classes (79.5% were not teaching labs). Some of the methods used to continue laboratory teaching included using mock-ups of gas metal arc welding guns, YouTube videos, at-home practice with pictures of progress sent to the instructors, aerosol cheese and crackers, and the use of videos recorded in the school lab prior to closing. Few respondents showed a firm date for restarting classes. About 15% suggested June 2020 for potential opening, but 53% implied the fall semester would likely be when classes resume, and 21% were unsure when classes would start. No clear strategy emerged for social distancing in the laboratory. Only 20% of the instructors said the laboratory would be limited to less than 14 students with 65% of the instructors indicating classes would resume with full-student capacity or were unsure how many students would be allowed in the laboratory. The majority of the instructors affirmed their school would rely on state guidance (60.2%) for reopening, with 24.3% relying on local or school guidance. Only 6% indicated they or the school was following the CDC guidelines. However, about 49% of the instructors observed there was a strategy for disinfecting personal protective equipment (PPE). Yet, 47.2% of the instructors stated it was unknown who was responsible for disinfecting PPE. Furthermore, 48.4% of instructors did not know if additional PPE would be required, and 51.8% of instructors did not have a plan for social distancing. During the time schools have been closed, only 26.7% of instructors said they participated in any information-sharing websites, chats, or webinars. But 68.6% of instructors said they would likely or somewhat likely participate in information sharing after returning to the classroom. Finally, we asked about the resources that would be most beneficial to help improve welding instruction. The responses were varied, but a few of the common suggestions included a repository for welding lesson plans, listing of online resources, guidance for reopening schools, and, of course, additional funding. Key Recommendations With respect to the instructors who participated in the survey, the first key recommendation is obvious, resume face-to-face classes with the appropriate protection in place to allow for the safety of students, faculty, and staff. Because the instructors reported less than 50% of their students were participating in the online class format and 79% of the instructors reported their students were only partially prepared or not prepared well (24%) to enter the workforce, resuming face-to-face classes is critical to the preparation of our future workforce. Underlying the obvious recommendation is the realization that welding students and likely most CTE students require instruction and motivation from interaction with instructors. However, the data also tends to show that many of the instructors were not prepared for or had not received any instruction to allow for successful online teaching. Further, the lack of reliable internet accessibility — with 55.5% of instructors reporting their students did not have access — suggests insufficient infrastructure. The survey did not seek to determine the socioeconomic condition of the schools from which the data was gathered. Therefore, no generalizations can be made about the reasons for the lack of internet access. What can be said, however, is that many schools were profoundly unprepared for the shift to online instruction. Thus, the second recommendation is equally as obvious as the first: Develop a strategy to ensure internet access for all students. Whether the use of school-sponsored hotspots, or community developed hotspots, all students need reliable access for continued learning during potential future lockdowns. Schools need to determine the feasibility of mobile hotspots or the possibility of lending students cellular-ready equipment. The third recommendation concerns the instructors: Provide professional development to prepare instructors for online teaching. Many colleges and universities provide online teaching courses, leading to an online certification for instructors. Face-to-face classes cannot simply be transferred to a LMS without thoughtful development of objectives, learning activities, motivation strategies, assessment of progress, and evaluation methods. The fourth recommendation is standardized guidance. The instructors reported there was little guidance from federal and local government or school districts for reopening schools. A standard for social distancing, laboratory population, disinfection (including responsibility for disinfecting equipment), required PPE, and student movement needs to be developed and enforced. A safe learning environment is critical to effective learning. Specific recommendations for class size, student spacing, disinfecting frequency, instructor protection, welding demonstration strategies, and perhaps student testing should be written in plain language and as simple bullet points. Recommendations for safe operation of laboratories during the pandemic should be as visible as the general safety rules posted in nearly every welding laboratory. The final recommendation is for organizations to develop content for welding instructors. As welding content materials are produced and professional development courses are developed, design the materials for use in the classroom and online. Some additional student learning objectives, strategies for both in-class and online motivation, learning activities that may easily be adapted to an LMS, listings of robust online resources, and secure evaluation methods are a start. Conclusion As Weld-Ed enters the next phase of education with uncertainty, preparation is the key to success. Our survey shows we were all unprepared for the dramatic shift in content delivery. However, as we continue to struggle with the possibility of future disruptions to the education process, we need to be adaptable, innovative, and flexible. Welding education will have to adapt to the possibility of decreased time in welding laboratories. Therefore, effective and efficient learning activities will be critical. No virtual welding system, at least currently, will take the place of in-laboratory and on-the-job practice. But adaptability through the development of hybrid welding courses will help to improve the throughput of our students and prepare them for a successful career. Understanding of the student learning process, effective use of distance learning technology, sharing of educational resources, and continuous improvement through professional development are all needed to ensure welding education remains a vigorous contributor to the economic and social success of our students and the United States.

Join Us in Orlando

Expo Hours

Venue

About the Expo

North America's Largest Metal Forming, Fabricating, Welding and Finishing Event

From the Blog

The State of Welding Education During COVID-19

About the Expo

2024 Platinum Sponsors

2024 Sponsors

Tuesday Oct 15	9 AM — 5 PM
Wednesday Oct 16	9 AM — 5 PM
Thursday Oct 17	9 AM — 4 PM